The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burgess (illustrator)[edit]

Mark Burgess (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted, but then Contested WP:REFUND by the subject of the article. Known for Return to the Hundred Acre Wood classic WP:ONEVENT, Probably could be redirected to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood but does not deserve own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - per nom. Jeremjay24
• Speedy Keep. Known worldwide as an author and illustrator of over 40 children's books written over the past 20 years. This is far from a classic WP:ONEEVENT. When using the search tools above, search "Mark Burgess", removing the notation in parentheses. Add the term "author". You'll get several hits.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Should I go on? If you need to see more, please let me know. Cindamuse (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. But this time please point to works about this person rather than by this person. Consider this a big ((fact)) against that "known worldwide" if it helps. Where is it recorded that this person is known? Who recorded it? Where has this knowledge been published? Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Do you have a recommendation based on policy for this particular article to either keep or delete? Or are you simply here to serve as devil's advocate? The nomination was made to delete this article based on the presumption of WP:ONEEVENT. I offered a response to counter that belief. The subject also meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, as such he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. His work has been published by major publishing houses of Penguin Books and HarperCollins. I would present that his collective body of work illustrating not only the recent revisit of Winnie the Pooh, but his adaption of Peggy Fortnum's illustrations for the 50th Anniversary Edition of A Bear Called Paddington by Michael Bond; as well as his illustrations of the classic edition of Little Toot by Hardie Gramatky, highly qualify as an enduring historical record to children's literature. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Periodical reviews not online include Publishers Weekly, March 12, 2001, "Review of Teddy Time", p. 93; School Arts, October 2000, Ken Marantz, "Review of Dog's Night", p. 64; School Library Journal, July, 2000, Patricia Mahoney Brown, Review of Dog's Night", p. 80.
      • I'm here to get you to provide a good rationale in place of the bad one, citing sources that don't in fact document the subject at hand at all, that you are still providing. Notice that not a one of the sources that you've cited thus far documents this person to any greater extent than the longest does, which is exactly one sentence: "Illustrations are by Mark Burgess, an English writer and illustrator of many children's books.". Most give this person exactly three words. So, for the second time of asking, please cite sources that are about this person, that actually document the knowledge of this person that you claim exists but haven't yet shown to be documented. Pointing to a couple of dozen occurrences of "illustrator Mark Burgess" and an autobiographical jacket blurb does not demonstrate independent reliable source material for a biographical encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I think I've provided more than enough information to establish notability in support of keeping this article on Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that you may better serve the AfD process by participating according to information provided at How to discuss an AfD. It just feels like you're a bystander or someone sitting in the church balcony looking down at everyone else participating, while you're just waiting for someone to screw up, so you can point fingers. This is just my personal observation of several AfDs where you have done the same thing. It may help if you actually join the process by offering a recommendation based on policy, and offering comments accordingly. Just a thought. Have a great day! Cindamuse (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called AfD Patrol, kiddo, and it helps the process by discouraging people from thinking that the right approach is to try to out-vote policy with boldfaced words, unsupported and bad rationales, and non-sources (even two dozen of them). The recommendation based upon policy stands: You should provide a good rationale, with a sound basis in deletion and verifiability policies that supports your intention that the article be kept (as well as supporting the as yet unsupported claims about this person that you've made). Despite it being pointed out twice, now, you've not done so, and your rationale still holds no water when it comes to the correct application of policy. You've cited sources that don't discuss this person (because, of course, they are in fact discussing books, and merely mentioning this person in passing) and a book jacket blurb. If you want the article kept, you would do well to start citing more than two dozen non-sources and an autobiographical publicity blurb. It's what policy requires, and if it doesn't happen you'll find your rationale being discounted and the outcome that you oppose happening despite you. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. I'm well aware of the AfD Patrol, Bubba ; ) which neither confers rights or privileges, nor absolves responsibility or expectations beyond those of all editors which recommends an appropriate guideline for participating in an AfD discussion. The intent of the patrol is to assist the process, rather than hinder it. As such, the policies and guidelines of the AfD Patrol, reminds participants to review and comply with the guidance offered at How to discuss an AfD. Again, I think it might be something you may want to consider. Lead by example. Give it a try. Cindamuse (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Sources: [30], [31], those are not extensive coverage but they're solidly reliable, and they firmly establish verifiable information. This man is solidly notable through his illustrations. WP:AUTH reads "# The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And even in the "worst case scenario" that we find only sparse biographical information, keeping the page is still useful as a resource for finding his various works. Cazort (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you are proposing to provide verifiability for even that much of an article, to counter problems like this one, from what sources? Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this comment is relevant to the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you don't understand our deletion and verifiability policies and should go back and refamiliarize yourself with them. This is an AFD discussion, where policies are applied. The boldfaced words don't count; the rationales do. Our policies require that even the minimum, "worst case", skeleton article that you propound be verifiable. This is the question that you get asked and have to answer to make a case that meets policy: What sources exist even for your proposed skeleton? If you think that you don't have to show that even the minimal article that you suggest can be verifiable, then be prepared for an unpleasant surprise at discussion closure. Answer the question or fail to make a case. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changed to weak keep. Not a single source is about this author; WP:GNG is therefore not met. I believe he authored books. I believe he illustrated books. What is his historic impact? --Pgallert (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:AUTH point 3; his work has received a great deal of editorial attention, including in the NY Times, CS Monitor: [32], guardian, and other high-profile publications. That is an official wikipedia guideline and according to this, he is solidly notable. The volume of attention is substantial: [33] shows mention in 113 articles; a number of those are detailed editorial reviews of the work. And since Winnie the Pooh is largely about the illustrations, this makes it very solid the way I see things. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source is the classic example of a "mentioning in passing", just like all the others. The article is not about Burgess, which would be what we're looking for. --Pgallert (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Burgess as an individual is just mentioned in these sources--but his work is discussed in great detail. WP:AUTH makes very clear that discussion of the work is sufficient for establishing notability in a case like this. That is an official wikipedia guideline. Would you argue that point 3 is not met? Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently yes, I would argue that point 3 of WP:AUTH is not met, or better: That point 3 does not apply. The well-known work is Winnie-the-Pooh, an old children's series that Burgess did not illustrate. The sequel he worked on is not well known. From my point of view, that observation directs the discussion to either WP:GNG which is not shown to be met, or to other points of CREATIVE which I do not see he meets. I'll reconsider after the rescue attempt is done. --Pgallert (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of policy on two points; I think the numerous editorial reviews of the sequel, including in high-profile, globally respected publications like the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor demonstrate that point 3 is met. Also, I also want to point out that notability does not depend on the current state of the article. Notability must be argued solely based on the existence of sources--the state of the article is irrelevant. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not buy the "multiple independent reviews=significant work" part of the story. To me, this equality cannot be concluded from WP:AUTH point 3 which I would read as "the work must be important first, and multiply reviewed second". Books are being reviewed by the thousands, every day. Which means we now have a creative professional who (to me) is not notable per CREATIVE but is after the improvements by Codehydro notable per GNG. Change to weak keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Incase you havent already guessedWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood. Unfortunately, even those !voting for keeping the article appear unable to provide third party sources about the illustrator. Articles about the book abound and many mention the Burgess is the illustrator, but this is not adequate coverage to either establish notability or generate an adequately sourced biographical article. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AUTH point 3 is pretty clear that articles about the work establish the notability of the individual. Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirection to that page makes no sense as this person also illustrated other books such as the 1999 remake of Little Toot. —CodeHydro 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Reinstatement of deleted sources: [34][35].
  • That's an inaccessible library catalogue, and an article that is, as so many others in this discussion are, actually about Return to the Hundred Acre Wood rather than Mark Burgess. As before, this provides almost zero biographical information about Burgess other than the usual "illustrated by Mark Burgess". Its only other statement about Burgess, rather than about the book, is a first person personal opinion of the book reviewer ("Burgess, I am sure, knows"). Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inaccessible library catalogue was my error as I hadn't realised it was session-linked, hence (in part) my original deletion of it. The British Library Integrated Catalogue is freely accessible without login and, although a little idiosyncratic, is useful for verifying works by British authors. However, because of the session linking it is not possible to provide direct links to entries. Marcus civis (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. I would suggest that this article be improved immediately to save its bacon, however, and have flagged it for rescue. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sufficient career achievement" doesn't overcome the problems that the biographical content cannot be verified from independent sources and the bibliographical content cannot be verified at all. If there is no verifiable bibliographical nor biographical content to be had, an empty article results. This is a deletion outcome, per policy. I've pressed for sources. In response, we've had claims that sources are irrelevant to the discussion, citations of Burgess' autobiography, and citations of lots of three-word "illustrated by Mark Burgess" non-sources. Things are not looking good. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your interpretation of policy here. I think that the size and scale of an article is irrelevant if the subject meets any of the notability criterion. In particular, I believe that WP:AUTH point 3 is met, others may not agree with my interpretation of that point but that is what I believe and I have not been convinced otherwise and would thus strongly object to this deletion. Also, even if you are resting your argument on the size / scale of the article (which I don't think is a valid interpretation of policy), the article has since been expanded. One source I find questionable but even without that, it's big enough for me if I were judging on the size of the article alone. I maintain my earlier recommendation of strong keep. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have expanded the article a bit and added some sources. A lot more need to be done, but it is certainly not worth deleting this article on an author and illustrator of so many books. Since it is not that old, deleting would be like WP:DEMOLISH. —CodeHydro 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the source that you've added supporting the major portion of the content that you've added is Mark Burgess' autobiography. That's not an independent source. If the world at large, independent of Mark Burgess, has not documented the life of Mark Burgess, then Wikipedia cannot have a biography of Mark Burgess. You've also failed to address the basic verifiability problem that Cazort is failing to address, above, that is exemplified by this problem. The only source that you've cited that even comes close to addressing that is Helwig2009 (which once again is actually about the book rather than about the person and only touches upon the person in passing) which merely states that Burgess "has illustrated countless classic children’s characters". That doesn't provide verifiability for even the skeleton article suggested, and doesn't provide a means for addressing the aforementioned problem. It's not really providing much in the way of concrete factual information at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a global restriction to using autobiographical sources as references. That said, there are guidelines in its use. WP:BLPSPS specifically states to never use self-published sources, "unless written or published by the subject". Autobiographies or information published by the subject of the article may be used as a source if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Cindamuse (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Cindamuse. I'd also like to note that I added four sources since the comment above by Uncle G seems to imply that I only added one. The self-published source is only used to fill in the gaps and is used in a way that is entirely consistant with WP:SOURCES and the policy which Cindamuse cites above. As for Uncle G's concern that works by other Mark Burgesses are included in his list, I noticed that as well, hence why I added the disambiguation above the article. Glad it got taken care of. —CodeHydro 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. And now I have doubled the list of third-party sources, phasing out most of directly self-sourced references. —CodeHydro 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one source: [36] is a blog source and I think some justification is needed in order to consider it WP:RS. But even without that source I would maintain my recommendation to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I posted this remark on Talk:Mark Burgess (illustrator) and it has been suggested to post it here as well. Mark Burgess is an important British illustrator . He certainly qualifies as being notable (or a lot of other articles on illustrators and designers will have to go). Illustration is an important part of modern culture, those who excel should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article should not be deleted. If it does not meet the other criteria of Wikipedia, than that is the issue that should be addressed. --JHvW (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significantly contributed to multiple notable works, listed in the article. Dream Focus 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Even more greatly expanded, with full bibliography. Source once again re-doubled as of last comment. Also nominated this article for DYK for 5x expansion. —CodeHydro 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "DYK for 5x expansion" mean? Dream Focus 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK or WP:Did you know is a way of promoting new content on Wikipedia by featuring articles in the "Did you know" section of the Wikipedia main page for around 6 hours. Basically new articles that are less than five days old that are of a minimum length or articles that have been expanded in length by over five times within the past five days may qualify to promoted this way. It's fairly typical for a DYK article to gain thousands of views in those brief six hours on the front page when it normally may get around 30 per day. —CodeHydro 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.